From communication to participation by civil society organizations

Public consultation is a process widely used by government authorities wishing to submit projects or activities to the scrutiny of civil society. It is a spirit of "good governance" and "sound policy development and decision-making" that motivates public participation activities. This is why the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation states that "interested and affected parties" must have the opportunity to take part in "open, meaningful and balanced consultations".

Consumer associations and other social players are regularly asked to take part in such events, and to bring a different perspective and expertise to the table. Participating in public consultations, working groups and round tables is part of their mandate and mission. However, operating in contexts where financial and human resources are limited, associations must choose to participate only in the most important or impactful public consultations.

In this study, the researchers set out to analyze the concrete experience of participants from civil society organizations. To do so, they conducted semi-structured interviews with experienced practitioners who frequently took part in such activities as part of their work. Participants in three public consultation activities were asked to take part in this research, and nearly 65% of them agreed to do so.

The semi-structured interviews were structured around six central themes: inclusion, continuity, flexibility, transparency, equality and clarity. It's impossible to summarize the results of our study faithfully, but we note a good deal of pragmatism among our participants. They are looking for structures that are both open and efficient. This is reflected in a number of paradoxes where organizations have divergent opinions that are probably difficult to reconcile.

Indeed, it would be risky to claim to be able to propose a universal model for public consultation. Unsurprisingly, consultations must always be designed and carried out in line with the objectives set. Thus, the scope and model of the activity will depend on many factors, including its theme and underlying issues.

However, organizers have to accept that their objectives are sometimes complementary, but also contradictory to those of the participants. For example, participants told us that they attach great importance to networking and the informative aspect of these consultations. For some, these "sub-objectives" could be as important as, or even more important than, the "formal" objectives of the consultation. This simple observation invites us to rethink public consultations to include best practices that meet the expectations and needs of civil society players.

In light of the interviews conducted, it also appears that participants have serious concerns about flexibility (also known as co-construction) and equal access to resources. Firstly, with regard to flexibility, respondents are most concerned about the process of determining the agenda for consultations and the themes that will be the subject of a consultation. In short, they are concerned about how issues worthy of consultation are chosen. To this end, the authors recommend that these processes be more transparent and require the participation of civil society organizations.

In terms of equal access to resources, respondents recognize the difficulty of participating actively and effectively in public consultation processes. While the difficulty of obtaining funding for this type of work was seen as a major brake, participants also suggested strategies for maximizing their participation in such events.

This exploratory type of research opens the door to other qualitative research that would seek to confirm or refute certain findings. By giving a voice to practitioners with solid experience, this research provides a fresh perspective on program evaluation. Moreover, organizers of public participation activities would do well to consult it and draw inspiration from it to propose innovative ways of doing things.